Wednesday, November 10, 2004, 4:52:23 AM, James wrote:
J> I'm not quite sure how to take that. The "SPF Community Position on
J> Sender ID" is a document that has been composed by members of this list,
J> and Meng asked for just this. There is no side stepping the MS issue,
J> although I feel quite strongly that there isn't any real negative MS
J> sentiment in the "position" document.
Take it that I will soon be able to sign! My issue is not with the
SPF Community Position. My comments are based on the thin line that
I feel needs to be walked with the presentation when addressing the
intended audience. My concern is that in my day job I'm in an almost
all MS environment so I'm very sensitive (rightly or wrongly) to how
windows SPF users react to statements being prepared.
I agree entirely that the issues with PRA must be aired in the SPF
position on SenderID and shortcomings with PRA highlighted..
J> Perhaps you could contribute how you think wording could be adjusted to
J> best reflect a position that gets the point across without coming off
J> all "Anti-MS". The Position is supposed to be construed as "Anti-PRA"
J> or "Anti-SenderID".
I've been watching with interest lots of helpful contributions that
are being built into the document that answer my concerns. These
contibutions have been much sharper than anything I could offer so
I kept silent. However a reading 30 hrs ago still had me concerned
that a commercial windows user could dismiss the Stated Position as
a 'not invented here syndrome' rather than a real tangable problem
with PRA that must be sorted out by MS coders.
J> The wording on the main page isn't Anti-MS either, nor is it Anti-Meng,
J> I tried as best as I could to use "word association" in this case,
J> Meng's name with SPF, and attempted to explain the presence of the
J> "Positions" document since why would it exist if Meng was actively
J> involved?
I'll re-read this section carefully, I have been thinking that the
tone against Meng was wrong, but the reason for inclusion was correct.
Note I'm deliberately being awkward by reading as a visitor to the SPF
pages who only has knowledge of information posted by press or on the
Pobox site. Thus if the points made are not clear then a reader may
choose to dismiss comments made by the SPF Community for a long while..
J> I am going to now update it to the better wording that was provided
J> earlier this evening. And I would like to make a "last call" for
J> changes to revision 1.02 of the "Positions" document so if you do have
J> feedback I will hold off on it so you may supply your suggestions.
I'm hoping that this last call and latest changes will make it
possible for me to sign without feeling in conflict with the MS
dependant groups employing our business services.
--
Best regards,
Shane